2020 Gulf of Alaska Expedition

agentaqua said:
"The cost for that expedition is estimated at $10 million..."
https://www.timescolonist.com/islan...ds-for-expanded-expedition-in-2020-1.23827160
https://www.nationalfisherman.com/a...orth-pacific-project-trawls-for-data-funding/

Whatever the exact costs turn out to be - definitely in the $ Millions...

same questions remain...

Does one HAVE TO go out into the middle of the Pacific to predict run sizes of juvie salmon, or...

Can this be done closer inshore?

Also - you can track the juvies all the way through all the size classes including the earliest marine residence using smaller boats and a smaller scale - where likely most of the mortality happens - the under 120mm FL sizes - the 35mm and up to that - which the large trawls miss - even the so-termed "inshore" ones by Trudel et al. - since they use the Ricker and a large net - they don't get the juvies until after a few weeks to a couple months - AFTER that mortality has happened.

but... not as high profile that way

so - the question is -are we looking at this through a science or political filter? Which is more important to the fish?

Which translates into setting fishing plans by watershed better?
a regional/local effect or a huge scale effect?
Click to expand...

well if climate change is reducing their feeding grounds and shifting populations north isn't this something that should be studies? what if some populations of salmon are screwed because they go to the same area year after year and some years there's feed but some years there's not? These mechanisms are important are they not?
 
I think yes is the short answer, WMY - been my point for a few posts, now. The PSF Salish Sea initiative is/was pretty comprehensive in answering the different aspects of that question - and that wasn't in the middle of the Pacific.

There may be some utility in examining the far offshore - but one does not necessarily need to do that in order to see early marine survival/mortality. In fact - by going far offshore - one totally misses the early marine survival/mortality events and their causes. That's also been my point for a few posts, now.

To reiterate: I would cream-off the best and most cost-effective methodologies from that initiative and add them strategically in places/watersheds with "holes" (and there are many) - especially in areas with limited and/or no stock assessment and/or with "at risk" stocks. I don't see it as a one-off high profile swan-song - but rather a team effort with numerous methodologies over an extended time period & extended geographic areas - the longer the better.

Really need to see several years in a row to make sense of it all - exact same rationale for things like lake studies & smolt fences - that would also be part of any combined stock assessment & fishing plan management.
 
Last edited:
Why were returns of sockeye and chum so bad last year? We know they left Salish sea in good shape, We don't no anything after that.

it seems your circling back to the areas that we have studied for the last 50 years

We have no understanding of the mechanisms causing this. For example 8 million pinks returned to the fraser last year. That's an okay return, The kicker is that year class was based on one of the smallest out migration ever.

no one can tell me any of the reason those fish survived in such high numbers in the ocean,
 
Last edited:
Well, that is why the PSF is doing the study, because it has not been done and as noted they are learning lots of things they had no ideal about.

Good on them for doing this and it is about time it was done.



agentaqua said:
I think yes is the short answer, WMY - been my point for a few posts, now. The PSF Salish Sea initiative is/was pretty comprehensive in answering the different aspects of that question - and that wasn't in the middle of the Pacific.

There may be some utility in examining the far offshore - but one does not necessarily need to do that in order to see early marine survival/mortality. In fact - by going far offshore - one totally misses the early marine survival/mortality events and their causes. That's also been my point for a few posts, now.

To reiterate: I would cream-off the best and most cost-effective methodologies from that initiative and add them strategically in places/watersheds with "holes" (and there are many) - especially in areas with limited and/or no stock assessment and/or with "at risk" stocks. I don't see it as a one-off high profile swan-song - but rather a team effort with numerous methodologies over an extended time period & extended geographic areas - the longer the better.

Really need to see several years in a row to make sense of it all - exact same rationale for things like lake studies & smolt fences - that would also be part of any combined stock assessment & fishing plan management.
Click to expand...
 
Dave said:
Thanks for the links. With enough money your plan would work, and all baseline material has already been recorded. Have you suggested this idea to managers?
Click to expand...
Only for about 18 years, Dave. To be honest & fair DFO Stock Assessment has been doing more with less for about the same amount of time (started with Harper, yet again dismantling our checks & balances) - trying to keep what they have afloat (pun intended). But.. it seems that now that even the sibling models have so much noise in them with the changing ocean conditions - that focus is starting to change to looking at the ocean conditions - a little.
 
Last edited:
From the article:

“When we step back and look at the results of the two expeditions, it is clear that a major part of the life cycle of salmon remains to be discovered,” Beamish said.
 
OldBlackDog said:
From the article:

“When we step back and look at the results of the two expeditions, it is clear that a major part of the life cycle of salmon remains to be discovered,” Beamish said.
Click to expand...
Ya, the earliest marine entrance and residence where much of the mortality happens I would argue. But that would take researchers into impacts and operations in those nearshore areas. Hmmm.. wonder what industries are there?
 
agentaqua said:
Ya, the earliest marine entrance and residence where much of the mortality happens I would argue. But that would take researchers into impacts and operations in those nearshore areas. Hmmm.. wonder what industries are there?
Click to expand...

again wasn't that the point of the salish sea project, you seem to imply they are not doing this work it seems to me they are.
 
The agent is implying fish farms are the cause of on shore mortalities, and someone ( not sure who) is afraid on shore research would show that to be true.
 
Agent, can you clarify what areas you think need to be looked at more closely by scientists? You mention that perhaps they don't need to go way offshore where the current expedition is taking place but where exactly do you propose and why? The scientists on the boat are well aware that their annual cruise isn't going to solve all of the mysteries of salmon survival in the open ocean but rather that it will likely (and already has) provided some interesting findings that create more questions than answers really.

Part of the SSMSP has been tracking juvenile salmon from SOG rivers all the way to the northern SOG (port hardy area) and all the way out the JDF (Renfrew area). Some of these studies were done using PIT tags and utilizing ocean network canada arrays and receivers. Other studies put fishermen on small boats to do 'mircotrolling' to catch juveniles and record data. They really found out a lot about when and where juvenile salmon are dying both in-river and then on their way out to the open ocean (whether they take the SOG or JDF route). They are continuing to study these areas but the point of the offshore expedition was to figure out if anything could be found out about survival of juveniles during their first winter at sea as this was seen as the next critical time period (next to first few months out of river).

The citizen science program utilized a dozen boats and CTD's to capture great oceanographic data all throughout the salish sea as well to help try to put the puzzle together. A similar idea could be a expand this citizen science idea to grow the number of small boats and researchers and equip them with more equipment to catch and record juvenile salmon in areas outside of the areas already being studied... perhaps closer to shore than this current large expedition is going. All of this would take $ however.
 
Update



A trawl net captured three species of salmon off southern Vancouver Island today marking success after several days without any sign of salmon during a scientific expedition.


Four coho, three chum and one sockeye were pulled in just west of the 200-mile limit, said Nanaimo’s Richard Beamish, one of the organizers of a winter scientific expedition to learn more about salmon as many stocks are declining.

“The catch of three species is unexpected, particularly the sockeye which we would expect to be much father north, unless the DNA shows that it is a Harrison River sockeye which has a different life history than all other Fraser River sockeye salmon,” Beamish said.

“However, whenever we say something was unexpected, the reality is that almost all of our observations are new, meaning we have healthy imaginations.”

The expedition is expected to return to Victoria on Tuesday. The team of Canadian and Russian scientists left Point Hope Maritime on March 11 and hauled in hundreds of salmon before hitting a lull in recent days.

The DNA in the latest catch and other salmon will be analyzed, allowing researchers to “compare the specific populations with the oceanography and begin to interpret why they are where they are,” Beamish said.

“Importantly, we also collect information about health and condition which we hope will help us understand why these individuals have survived to be out here now when most of their brothers and sisters never made it this far.”
 
I hope Dick Beamish is somehow recognized, at a later date, for putting this together, and I hope funding for future expeditions will be made available, even in these troubling times.
 
Good questions, tincan.

I think every capture & sampling methodology has it's strengths & weaknesses and it's own scale where it is effective. I really don't think it is a 1 shot deal where using only 1 methodology is going to be able to follow any fish species throughout the totality of their migration and lifecycle. So...

The idea would be to find where the "holes" are wrt data - and try to plug that hole where when & how that particular capture methodology is effective.

And... speaking of $...

I am not opposed to this latest 1-off project by Beamish - just questioning where it fits - and what specific hole it is addressing - and whether or not it is the most effective - and cost-effective strategy to provide data to allow us to manage fisheries. As a comparison - small vessel costs from $500 (skiff) to maybe ~$5000/day (the 40+ton vessels) verses $30,000 to $50,000/day for a large vessel. If you wish to run such a vessel for 2-3 months - the price tag is ~$4.5 MILLION.

So if you wish to fund the larger vessels to operate - it should be for a good reason - one you can't answer using the small ones.

I also say that with the knowledge that is backed-up with a fair bit of science that says much of the mortality happens BEFORE the fish make it way out into the middle of the Pacific, as well.

So - if the purpose is to track mortality and plug holes in that data - the near marine residence is the logical place and time to track that mortality - NOT the middle of the Pacific.

These are the issues I have with the Beamish project.

To answer your specific questions Tincan - if we looked @ the whole Coast the way the PSF looked @ the "salish Sea" - used the most appropriate methodologies to plug the numerous holes - I strongly believe that that would be a more effective strategy and a more cost-effective strategy to provide data for salmon management.

You would either need to have a good DNA baseline (works for Chinook & sockeye) on larger-scale mixed fishery areas and/or operate on a smaller scale tracking emergence and run size using CPUE and/or use tagging (pit, CWT, sonic or other) to produce both run size estimates and impacts along the outmigration.

Trawl CPUE on run size does work wrt backcasting & forecasting - but you need to apportion that to natal watershed. The microtagging has high survival - but low catches. So it would be useful to use when wishing to tag and release fish - particularly with the larger tags, such as the sonic ones. Purse seine & trawl netting works better for pelagic juveniles (esp. sockeye) while beach seining works best for juvies on the beach (esp. pinks & coho). Higher (tidal) current areas attract more Chinook juvies. Steelhead and ocean-type Chinook juvies come out later in the season, while chum, pinks & sockeye come out earlier and generally in that order. Coho can trickle out even into September.

ALL species have to grow to some critical size before they take off for the Pacific (if they do) - and spend 1-3 months growing up to that size - and incurring traceable mortality BEFORE any large trawl vessel will catch them.

You would therefore need to prioritize what species and what stocks (watersheds) you want more info for - to use the appropriate methodology during the right time frame.

or.. maybe instead just charter 1 large vessel once or twice and make a splash in the media.

What makes the most sense to you?
 
Thanks for this. WMY. I think it would have been helpful for the cruise's organizers to provide a more detailed proposal that included goals and deliverables and how this project fits into our fisheries management regime. All of the bona fide scientific proposals usually have a process that requires this along with a board that reviews how plausible and effective those proposed deliverables and methodologies might be.
 
https://yearofthesalmon.org/wp-cont...6x_-B1XZB7dFXRyKu7pO7n5edCBkxGFpkowekrVtxQiCY

2020 GULF OF ALASKA EXPEDITION: RETURN OF THE PACIFIC LEGACY The International Year of the Salmon (IYS) and Pacific Salmon Foundation (PSF) are happy to announce the successful completion of the second Gulf of Alaska Expedition with the safe arrival of Canadian charter vessel Pacific Legacy and their international team of scientists to Victoria Harbour on April 7th 2020. Scientists on the vessel were studying the factors that regulate the abundance of salmon during the ocean residence and determining if these surveys can provide an early measure to the number of salmon that will return to North American rivers. This expedition follows the first international expedition last year aboard the Russian research vessel the R/V Professor Kaganovskiy that carried out similar studies in the Gulf of Alaska. In this second expedition, there were 51 stations spaced out over the southern Gulf of Alaska, each about 8 hours apart. At each station there were extensive oceanographic measurements and a trawl net fished at the surface for one hour. Numerous samples were collected from all salmon including a tissue sample for DNA analysis which will identify the exact spawning location. The Pacific Legacy set sail with 12 scientists from Canada, Russia, and the United States on March 11th, 2020. Due to the ongoing situation regarding the pandemic, scientists from the United States disembarked the ship during a routine stop in Prince Rupert as a precaution against the possibility of borders being closed between the neighboring countries. Upon arrival, scientists from Russia were unable to return home right away due to the pandemic, and are currently working on the cruise report at their colleague’s home in Nanaimo, B.C. Despite the changing landscape, scientists continue to take this unique opportunity to finally get back to studying the factors that are regulating salmon abundance as they work on their research and findings from the expedition. Data collected from both expeditions are being made available to all interested researchers and a conference will be held when possible to bring researchers from both expeditions together to finalize interpretations and publish the findings. Although we were unable to hold a media event to welcome the Pacific Legacy home, we are considering a virtual briefing to provide more information to the media next month. This second expedition is part of the International Year of the Salmon and is supported by the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission and the Pacific Salmon Foundation. The expedition was privately funded by the organizations whose logos are attached and organized by Dick Beamish, Brian Riddell and the participants. About International Year of the Salmon International Year of the Salmon (IYS) is a 5-year initiative to establish the resilience of salmon and people in a changing world. It is a hemispheric partnership being led by the North Pacific
Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC) in the North Pacific, the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO) in the North Atlantic, as well as by NGOs, private sector, government and academic organizations. Press Release About Pacific Salmon Foundation The Pacific Salmon Foundation (PSF) is a federally incorporated non-profit charitable organization dedicated to the conservation and restoration of wild Pacific salmon and their natural habitats in British Columbia and the Yukon. Operating independently from government, The Foundation facilitates dialogue and undertakes positive initiatives in support of Pacific salmon amongst all levels of government including First Nations; as well as industry, communities, individual volunteers and all fishing interests. Access to the 2020 Gulf of Alaska Expedition web page can be found here: https://yearofthesalmon.org/gulf-of-alaska-expedition2020/ Credited photos from the 2020 Gulf of Alaska Expedition are available on the IYS Flickr page:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/145318619@N06/albums/72157713890289512 For more information regarding the 2020 Gulf of Alaska Expedition, please contact Dr. Richard Beamish (rabeamish@shaw.ca) or Dr. Brian Riddell (briddell@PSF.CA) . For more information regarding the virtual briefing please contact IYS Director Mark Saunders (msaunders@yearofthesalmon.org). Quotes: “There is one thing that is crystal clear - that is that both of these expeditions provide ample evidence that we need to understand the bigger picture of what regulates salmon abundance… That bigger picture is the time that they are spending in the ocean outside of the coastal area and we really know very little about it… These kinds of expeditions are difficult to mount because they are expensive and require about four weeks on the water” Richard Beamish as quoted by Carla Wilson in “Ship returns after international team spends month at sea studying salmon”, Times Colonist, published 04/08/2020
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Deepaaaar
Alaska salmon harvest 2023
Replies
3
Views
902
Deepaaaar
Deepaaaar
IronNoggin
Barkley Sound, Alberni Inlet Sockeye Forecast for the 2023 Return
Replies
8
Views
2K
cammer
C
IronNoggin
Petition to the House of Commons
Replies
22
Views
1K
G Gordon
G Gordon
OldBlackDog
BCWF, Conservation Hatchery. Things to Contemplate by Bob Hooton.
Replies
7
Views
758
Derby
Derby
Hot-Streak
Hali opens tomorrow 3 Feb 2024
Replies
2
Views
751
Tsquared
Tsquared
Back
Top